Charles Darwin Joins the Discovery Institute

These are exciting times for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

Today we have a thrilling new post by David Klinghoffer, whose creationist oeuvre we last described here, and upon whom the Discoveroids have bestowed the exalted title of “senior fellow” — i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist. His name has some of the resonance of Red Skelton’s Clem Kadiddlehopper, but it’s not a perfect match.

Klinghoffer’s (or Kadiddlehopper’s) latest is Would Darwin, If He Rejoined Us, Be a Darwin-Doubter? First he discusses the Discoveroids’ adoption of Alfred Wallace. We’ve written about that bit of grave-robbery several times, most recently here: “Alfred Wallace Is Ours!”. Then he says, with bold font added by us and Klinghoffer’s links omitted:

Far dicier, but more delicious, is the question of how Charles Darwin himself, if he rejoined the world, would respond to critiques of and alternatives to his theory. The question is irresistible and, to venture an informed speculative guess, calls as much for the mind of a novelist as that of a biologist. In a little book called I, Charles Darwin: Being the Journal of His Visitation to Earth in the Year 2009, history writer and novelist Nickell John Romjue gives it a whirl.

We should remind you that aside from dragging poor ol’ Wallace into their Seattle sinkhole, the Discoveroids have previously claimed other corpses as belonging to their movement. See: Thomas Jefferson Joins The Discovery Institute!, and they’ve also grabbed Rousseau (Discovery Institute Snatches Another Corpse). This behavior of associating themselves with dead but illustrious names is the flip side of their ongoing campaign to link the name of Charles Darwin to that of Marx, Stalin, and Hitler.

But now they’re attempting their cheekiest grave-robbery ever. They’re after Darwin himself. Klinghoffer continues, as he describes the strange book he’s touting:

Romjue does a fine job of imagining the order of subjects in which Darwin might get caught up on contemporary science and social thought. Probably he would first turn his attention to aspects of zoology, embryology and paleontology, fields that existed in his time; then to the development of evolution-fed materialist philosophies from Marxism to Freudian to Nazism; and finally to fields that the historical Darwin never dreamed of, notably genetics, the microbiology of the cell, and cosmic fine-tuning.

Yeah — “evolution-fed materialist philosophies from Marxism to Freudian to Nazism.” Klinghoffer’s the greatest! Let’s read on:

He mourns the evolution of his own idea in the hands of Stalin, Lenin, Mao and, most horrific of all, Hitler.

If it weren’t for Hitler, what would the Discoveroids write about? Hey — No Hitler, no Discovery Institute! We continue:

In an exercise like this, there is always the peril of descending to hokum. Romjue avoids the danger.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s more:

Self-anointed Darwin defenders won’t buy the takeaway lesson — that Darwin, given the fullness of the evidence of science that he never knew, would come to reject his own theory. You’ll have to read Romjue for yourself and decide.

There’s more to Klinghoffer’s essay, but we’ve given you the general idea. He actually thinks their movement would persuade Darwin to join them. What does your Curmudgeon think? We don’t need to tell you.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Charles Darwin Joins the Discovery Institute

  1. Those are truly phenomenal levels of delusion. Tell me – maybe you’ve posted about this – to what extent do you think Creationists are wilfully misunderstanding the evidence for and claims made by evolution, and to what extent are they just too stupid to get it?

  2. jonnyscaramanga asks:

    to what extent do you think Creationists are wilfully misunderstanding the evidence for and claims made by evolution, and to what extent are they just too stupid to get it?

    It’s too much work to figure it out, and it doesn’t really matter. I just lump ’em all together.

  3. Ceteris Paribus

    As for me and my house, the true extent of Creationist willful misunderstanding can be described shouting out the single word: “Hallelujah!”

    To gauge the stupidity of the Creationists, just repeat: “Hallelujah!” as often as necessary to dull any cognitive operations of the cerebral cortex.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    oops, sorry SC An anonymous cat danced on keyboard – please fix

    As for me and my house, the true extent of Creationist willful misunderstanding can be described by shouting out the single word: “Hallelujah!”

    To gauge the stupidity of the Creationists, just repeat: “Hallelujah!” as often as necessary to dull any cognitive operations of the cerebral cortex.

  5. NeonNoodle

    Der Klinghoffer’s presumption knows no bounds! This brazen, undeserving appropriation of Darwin himself summons up another Red Skelton character: Freddie the Freeloader.

  6. One of the last paragraphs in Kadiddlehopper’s, oops, Klinghoffer’s little essay is:

    Modern Darwinists are distinguished by an almost unanimous refusal to answer the best arguments ranged against their precious theory. A coward like Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers is content to offer cheap mockery of Biblical creationists, while occasionally setting up superficial drive-by jobs supposedly devastating to non-creationist “IDiots.” But almost never do Darwin apologists dare to take up the burden of responding to ID’s serious scientific challenges, as presented in serious forums by ID’s own scientists and theorists.

    Hahahahahaha. I think they’re getting a bit sensitive. However, to answer his question, the creationist IDiots have never put forth a serious scientific challenge. All they have is rhetoric, and it is hardly serious.

  7. NeonNoodle

    But isn’t Darwin burning in Hell, according to these geniuses? At least that’s what I’ve been reading on their bumper stickers, just below the Jesus fish. (“Darwin is dead, and he’s not coming back!”) Maybe they should start an “Occupy Darwin” movement, and let working taxpayers with no religious tax-exempt status clean up their leftover debris; loaves, fishes, pamphlets and comic book tracts.

  8. @jonnyscaramanga: I was just thinking about this myself. Herman Cummings is an interesting case; his lack of understanding about gravity and orbits seems comically out of place, given that we have been putting our own satellites in orbit for 55 years. His thought process must be entirely different, and what we view as willful misconceptions probably make perfect sense to him.

    *** And Herman, if you are reading this, I am really not trying to make fun of you (not this time anyway), but I am honestly astounded how you interpret (deny?) some basic knowledge. It would be educational to learn how you think about the world. ***

  9. Although most creationists have to be low-grade idiots, there are some that are fairly intelligent people. I think it is these ones who realize that thinking rationally & following evidence will have to lead them to the conclusion that their faith is a fraud. This scares the hell out of them, (or into them?) and requires these incredible & bizarre mental gymnastics to convince themselves they still have a reason to cling to their unsupportable beliefs.

  10. I’ll say it again, and mark my words. Klinghoffer is the future of anti-evolution activism. Richard Leakey’s optimistic prediction may be partly true, in that much of today’s anti-evolution arguments will be tossed in the dustbin over the next few decades. In fact YEC activists have been “slouching towards Omphalism” for decades. But they will be replaced by a much more new-agey “have everything both ways” scam spearheaded by the K-man himself. Even if his name does not become as familiar as Darwin’s, his sound bites will be.

    @jonnyscaramanga

    Your question is valid, though it requires reading minds to answer with any certainty for any particular individual. Nevertheless, I think it must be constantly asked, if only because the alternative – allowing the public to think that all evolution-deniers believe the same thing – helps the anti-evolution activists. Especially those like Klinghoffer, with their “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when, just promote fear of ‘Darwinism’ any way possible” strategy. For those activists, if not most of their rank-and-file fans, I think that Ronald Bailey’s 1997 assessment is more accurate than ever.

  11. Artor: “I think it is these ones who realize that thinking rationally & following evidence will have to lead them to the conclusion that their faith is a fraud.”
    Not sure what you mean by “their faith,” but most mainstream Judeo-Christian faiths are on record as accepting evolution. And many of their educated members have dismissed creationism/ID as both bad science and bad theology.
    Sadly, if an evolution-denier does not accept evolution (theistic or otherwise) by their mid-teens, most likely (but not always) they never will. That’s why the scam artists are so obsessed with promoting their censored versions of “the controversy” in 9th grade science class. If a student is on the verge of dismissing creationism/ID as nonsense, but is otherwise sympathetic to evolution deniers and/or is more attracted to law or sales careers than science (i.e. they prefer to debate than discover), they can learn to be in on the scam.